Talk:William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 13:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'll review the lead section the last, but an article of this length, the lead seems a little meager.
• I think it would be better if the image (captioned "Thompson campaign poster") be used inside the infobox.
• "Affiliation" in infobox should be "Republican Party"
• Structure: Currently, the table of contents is a bit longer that what I would have expected for such an article. We can merge some of the headings. For instance, we can have something like "Aftermath and analysis". And for all those subheading in the "General Election campaign", try keeping it limited to 4-5 instead of 8. This, however, is a personal suggestion with no bearing on this GA nomination.
• Republican William Hale "Big Bill" Thompson, who had — William Hale "Big Bill" Thompson, a member of the Republican Party, had ...
• We really need a bit more about who Thompson was and what were his political offices before being mayor twice. Something like the Background section of this article.
• Upto you, but I'd be willing to suggest to hyphenate terms like nonconsecutive and reelection.
• took advantage of the crime situation — what crime situation
• within to his — during his
• which The New York Times observed gave Thompson a track — needs a comma
• Thompson claimed that — "Thompson, however, claimed that"
• He also had enemies from his previous tenure, — enemy?
• at a Frank L. Smith U.S. Senate campaign rally held at the city's Cort Theatre — "at a rally at Cort Theatre, Chicago, held as a part of Frank L. Smith's campaign for United States Senate". Sounds better?
• Thompson kicked off his — rephrase to keep it a bit more encyclopedic
• on January 10, 1927 with — Missing MOS:DATECOMMA
• A much lesser second opponent — I am unable to understand what this is trying to signify
• Originally, John Dill Robertson had planned — "John Dill Robertson had originally planned"
• However, Robertson dropped — "Robertson, however, dropped"
• of messy eating — I get what it is trying to signify, but can we possibly rephrase to keep it a bit more encyclopedic
• which her lost — he?
• by a margin of just over 100 votes — 100 out of how much? "That is what makes the actual difference"
• Thompson's margin of victory in the primary was record-breaking for a Chicago mayoral election. — Does any modern scholarly statement support this statement. It is cited to a almost 100-year old source.
• and prejudice'" — do we need a nbsp here? '"
• However, largely, Dever — can remove the first two words

Will continue. Would appreciate if you could fix other issues similar to those mentioned above as well. Solid article! Thanks for all your work here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Failing, unfortunately, due to any lack of response from the nominator in over two weeks. Please renominate this after fixing these issues whenever time permits. Thanks for all your work on this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Kavyansh.Singh you never pinged me nor posted on my talk page that you had made progress on this review. How would you expect me to be aware? SecretName101 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @SecretName101: (pinging you per your request): Well, the bot does send you notification that review has been started at your talk page. Nominators are expected to watch the review page. I was under the impression that you are aware the review has progressed. However, I'll suggest fixing these issues and renominating. I'll take it for review again (if you wish me to do so), if not, I'll let someone else take it. Again, the article was not failed due to it not meeting the gas criteria, but due to the boundations of the process. It is really not a big deal, you can freely renominate, but I strongly suggest fixing these issues and watch the ga review page by adding it in your watchlist. Regards, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Kavyansh.Singh Standard procedure if an article is in need of some more improvements but can be readied to meet criteria is to put it on hold, and for the nominator to be notified. That’s how every good article review I’ve been a part of has progressed. SecretName101 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @SecretName101: Well, I usually put articles on hold once I have completed reviewing the article. In this case, however, I hadn't reviewed the article in its entirety, but a part of it and had found sufficient reccuring issue to request the nominator to go through the complete article to fix them. And let me specify that this (me putting articles on hold after reviewing complete article) is my personal preference which I have used if the many ga review I have conducted, not an absolute requirement. So, would I be correct in assuming that during the 14 days, you never looked at the ga review? In either case, let's move ahead with the article. Do you plan to renominate? Feel free to let me know if you need any comments/review/etc. Bst, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Kavyansh.Singh Yes, in the period that the GA review was being conducted I was both busy in life and nothing had prompted me to know that there was anything here yet needing my attention. The only message I had received was that a Good Article review had been initiated and could take a large number of days to be conducted. I do plan to renominate at some point, so any recommendations you do have could be useful. SecretName101 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)